CONGRESS MAY HAVE TO ‘PUT THE BRAKES ON’ SOME USES OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER ACCORDING TO SENATOR JOHN THUNE
BRANDON, S.D. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight) – Incoming U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, signaled Tuesday he’s willing to push back against potential attempts by President-elect Donald Trump to expand presidential power over federal spending.
“Every president is going to come in and try to do as much as they can by executive action as possible,” Thune said. “Congress, in some cases, is going to be the entity that sometimes will have to put the brakes on.”
Thune spoke Tuesday to the Brandon Valley Area Chamber of Commerce and also took questions from reporters. He said Republicans in Congress will work with Trump to achieve shared policy goals.
“The things we want to achieve at present are by and large the same,” Thune said. “How we get there is another matter, and we’ll have to work through that.”
Trump’s pick for his budget director, Russ Vought, served in the same role during the first Trump administration. Vought has since outlined an aggressive vision for presidential power in Project 2025, a 922-page document from the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation.
“The President should use every possible tool to propose and impose fiscal discipline on the federal government.” Vought wrote. “Anything short of that would constitute abject failure.”
Trump has meanwhile tried to assert greater control over the Cabinet selection process, calling for the Senate to recess the chamber early next year so he can appoint whoever he wants without having to go through the confirmation process.
Thune said Tuesday he plans to immediately begin committee hearings on Cabinet nominees when Congress is sworn in on Jan. 3, 2025.
That’ll give the Senate a head start vetting Trump’s nominees before his inauguration on Jan. 20. After Trump is sworn in, Thune expects some nominations to quickly hit the floor of the Senate.
“The committees can’t report them out until the president is officially sworn in and they’re officially nominated,” Thune told the audience Tuesday in Brandon. “But they could do hearings.”
Thune told South Dakota reporters after the event that even though some questions have been raised about nominees, they “deserve a fair process” where senators question them on their background, qualifications and whether they “ought to be in these really important positions.”
Thune said he has not taken recess appointments off the table if Democrats try to obstruct or delay the confirmation of nominees when they reach the Senate floor, “particularly if they’re well regarded and they have bipartisan support.”
Top priorities for Republican senators heading into the new session of Congress, Thune said, include extending Trump’s 2017 tax cuts and securing the nation’s southern border.
Thune said he plans to begin drafting a budget reconciliation resolution to push an extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, key provisions of which expire at the end of 2025. The reconciliation process allows tax and spending bills to pass the Senate with 51 votes, instead of the 60 needed for most Senate legislation. Republicans will control 53 seats in the new Senate and will also control the House.
Failing to extend the tax cuts would lead to a $4 trillion tax increase, Thune said.
CARBON PIPELINE COMPANY HAS FAILED TO ADDRESS CROSSING CONCERNS ACCORDING TO OIL PIPELINE
SOUTH DAKOTA (Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight) – A company proposing a carbon dioxide pipeline should have conditions on its potential permit after it failed to address concerns about crossings with a crude oil pipeline, said the company that operates the oil pipeline.
Dakota Access LLC, which is controlled by Energy Transfer Partners, operates the Dakota Access Pipeline. It transports crude oil 1,172 miles from North Dakota to Illinois.
Summit Carbon Solutions plans a 2,500-mile pipeline to capture carbon dioxide from 57 ethanol plants across five states and transport it to North Dakota for underground storage. The project would capitalize on federal tax credits incentivizing the prevention of heat-trapping carbon emissions.
The routes of the existing and proposed pipeline cross eastern South Dakota. Summit recently reapplied for a permit after being rejected last year by the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission.
In a new filing with the commission, Dakota Access said Summit has not provided sufficient details — such as maps, depths and safety measures — about its proposed crossings of the Dakota Access Pipeline, known by the acronym “DAPL.”
“Summit has largely refused to talk to Dakota Access about pipeline crossing agreements and necessary mitigation measures to prevent damage to DAPL,” Dakota Access attorneys wrote.
To address the concerns, Dakota Access asked for 12 conditions if Summit receives a permit. The conditions include prohibiting heavy equipment or vehicles from operating directly on DAPL’s right-of-way without protective measures, requiring abrasive-resistant coating to be applied to the carbon pipeline at crossings, and mandating that Summit monitor all crossing locations and notify Dakota Access at least 48 hours in advance of any construction activity near DAPL’s right-of-way in South Dakota.
Alternatively, Dakota Access has requested that state regulators delay Summit’s permit proceedings until an agreement on crossing terms is reached.
Summit Carbon Solutions did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Brian Jorde, an attorney for landowners opposing the carbon pipeline, said in a news release that Summit’s failure to work with Dakota Access is problematic.
“The theme has been clear in South Dakota and across the region – Summit does not respect the law, they don’t respect the will of the people, and they think they can force themselves on and through South Dakota,” Jorde said.
Summit already has permits in Iowa and North Dakota. A decision is pending in Minnesota, and Nebraska has no state permitting processing for carbon pipelines.
EDUCATION GROUPS WARN OF SCHOOL VOUCHER PUSH IN SOUTH DAKOTA
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (Cooper Seamer/Dakota News Now) – School vouchers can have many names. Education savings accounts, tuition tax credits, etc. But for South Dakota’s education groups, they all mean the same thing: an attack on public education funding.
Vouchers in a sense allow families to take funds allocated for public schools and use them to pay for either private or homeschooling. Proponents of vouchers often call this “school choice.”
School Administrators of South Dakota executive director Rob Monson said South Dakotans already have the option of “school choice” by being able to open enroll into different districts, or choose private schools over public. But this effort would actively hurt public schools by starving them of money.
“In South Dakota, we’ve had school choice, and parents can home school. They can go to a private school, they can go to a public school. All great choices. The challenge we see with vouchers is we only have so much money in South Dakota to fund the K-12 system we have,” Monson said.
South Dakota Education Association executive director Ryan Rolfs said those cuts won’t be small. And he’s afraid it will be the state’s smaller districts that are impacted the most, making waves in their communities with cut programs.
“It’s going to result in larger class sizes, fewer educators in our classrooms. That’s both our teachers, our classified staff, and a reduced amount of programming we’re able to offer in our school communities. That doesn’t just hurt our schools, that hurts our students and the families,” Rolfs said.
The two organizations, along with Associated School Boards of South Dakota, the Large Schools Group, and South Dakota United Schools Association all penned a letter calling for push back against any effort to install school vouchers in South Dakota.
The full letter can be read below.
Dear South Dakotans,
We are writing to our friends and neighbors as representatives of education-focused organizations. Our organizations are comprised of South Dakotans who have served South Dakota communities and their children for decades. We express our strong concern and opposition to the introduction of school voucher programs in South Dakota. Voucher programs have many names, such as Education Savings Accounts, Tuition Tax Credits, Vouchers, Grants, Tax Credit Scholarships, or Debit Cards. These programs divert critical funding away from your public schools, which serve as the lifeblood of communities across our great state. Our public schools are the foundation of our community’s future as schools in your community produce your next workforce and serve as the draw for our young people to come home and raise their South Dakota families.
Public schools are the cornerstone and pride of our communities, welcoming all children regardless of background, ability, or socioeconomic status. The divergence of South Dakota taxpayer dollars into private, alternative instruction (home school) or for-profit institutions undermines Article VIII of the South Dakota Constitution. Our communities have been built on our public schools‘ ability to provide equitable, high-quality education for all children regardless of their zip code. For generations, South Dakotans have respected individuals‘ school choices, whether through open enrollment, private schooling, or alternative instruction (homeschooling), while maintaining their communities’ foundation through their public schools.
Research indicates that voucher programs consistently fail to improve academic outcomes. Most recently, research from the non-profit Economic Policy Institute reports how “Vouchers undermine efforts to provide an excellent public education for all.” The research notably states, “Public education is worth preserving – it should be seen as one of the most important achievements in our country’s history and crucial for the social and economic welfare of future generations.” It also warns, “Paradoxically, even while they take resources away from public schools, many newly introduced voucher programs could result in more total state spending in coming years.” As educators and South Dakotans, we ask that we not dismantle a system that is the bedrock of our communities as it provides all children with the opportunity to learn, be fed, be safe, and belong.
Instead of dismantling the system that educates the majority of our children, we urge policymakers to focus on strengthening public education. Monies intended to build “another education system” should be invested in our communities and our K12 system. Let us reaffirm our collective commitment to our communities through our pride in public schools, which are an investment in our children and the foundation of our democracy.
Submitted,
School Administrators of South Dakota (SASD)
Associated School Boards of South Dakota (ASBSD)
South Dakota Education Association (SDEA)
South Dakota United Schools Association (SDUSA)
Large School Group
They point to costly programs like in Arizona, New Hampshire, and Iowa that have spent far more state funds on school vouchers that what was originally allocated. Rolfs said in addition to those increasing costs, test scores also have either stayed steady or dropped.
“It has not resulted in better test outcomes for our students, or better learning outcomes for our students. So you have money going out of your public school system, having less resources go to all of our students, and then still getting lower results from our students. That’s just not a recipe for success,” Rolfs said.
Monson said while nothing has been announced yet, they’re sure there will be a lengthy discussion over school vouchers this next session in Pierre.
“We’re pretty confident there will be a voucher bill of some type coming, and this is probably one of those discussion points that will be happening the entire session. It won’t go away for a while,” Monson said.
Both Monson and Rolfs said if a bill is introduced, they and the other organizations that signed that letter plan on fighting it. They said after educators and state lawmakers worked hard to find solutions to put more money into school districts’ hands, this would be a step back.
